Amendment_0002_Question_and_Comment_Period_1_Cost_and_Price__March_15_2017.pdf

Enterprise Training Services Contract

Solicitation W900KK-17-R-0026; Amendment 0002

Phase 1 Response to Questions and Comments (Q&C) Cost and Price on Request for

Proposal issued 3 January 2017 (Q&C Period ended 10 January 2017)

Q&C 201:

Reference: Within RFP Attachment 4 (ERW), Pricing Instructions tab #2 states “The fully burdened hourly rates represent ceiling rates and the Offeror may, at its discretion, elect to propose discounted hourly rates while pricing individual TOs.” However, L.6.5.2

STOP HOURS AND RATES DEPICTIONS states that “Offerors shall utilize the FFP fully burdened labor rates proposed under its ETSC Rate Workbook to complete the STO

Pricing Workbook(s),” which indicates that offerors may not discount the IDIQ rates when pricing the STOs.

Question: Will the Government please clarify whether STO pricing in the proposal may include discounted rates or not?

Answer: See updated Language in Section L.6.8.2 STOP Hours and Rates Depictions.

The discounted rate may be used for Future Task Orders only. Attachment 4, Tab 1 verbiage within the ERW has been updated and now states that the ERW instructions apply only to Awardable Task Orders – not to the STOs.

Q&C 202:

Reference: Within RFP Attachment 4 (ERW), Pricing Instructions tab #2 states “The fully burdened hourly rates represent ceiling rates and the Offeror may, at its discretion, elect to propose discounted hourly rates while pricing individual TOs.” However, L.6.5.2

STOP HOURS AND RATES DEPICTIONS states that “Offerors shall utilize the FFP fully burdened labor rates proposed under its ETSC Rate Workbook to complete the STO

Pricing Workbook(s),” which indicates that offerors may not discount the IDIQ rates when pricing the STOs.

Question: Does the ability to discount from IDIQ ceiling rates apply only to awarded

TOs after IDIQ contract award?

Answer: See updated Language in Section L.6.8.2 STOP Hours and Rates Depictions.

The discounted rate may be used for Future Task Orders only. Attachment 4, Tab 1 verbiage within the ERW has been updated and now states that the ERW instructions apply only to Awardable Task Orders – not to the STOs.

Q&C 203:

Reference: SECTION_L.6.4.2.3

Question: When the Government states that the Offerors shall provide “sales data” for the last two years and projected sales, in what form does the Government want this? For previous years, consolidated financial reports could provide such information, but for projected sales, could the Government please clarify what type of data is required and how it is to be submitted?

Answer: See updated Sales Data language in Section L.6.7.5 Sales Data. Submission format is at the discretion of the Offeror.

Q&C 204:

Reference: The ERW does not specify whether the LCATs are to be priced as CONUS-based positions or OCONUS-based positions. The rates could be significantly different depending on TO locations.

Question: Will the Government please clarify whether LCATs are to be priced as

CONUS/OCONUS positions?

Answer: The Government is seeking to establish ceiling rates, and thus anticipates the higher labor category rates to be depicted. To help clarify this intention, please see revised L.6.3.3. The Government has intentionally not used the terms "CONUS" and

"OCONUS.”

Q&C 205:

Reference: The ERW does not specify whether the LCATs are to be priced as CONUS-based positions or OCONUS-based positions. The rates could be significantly different depending on TO locations.

Question: Are offerors allowed to establish separate CONUS and OCONUS ceiling rates, and, if so, how should they differentiate between them on Attachment 4?

Answer: The Government is seeking to establish ceiling rates, and thus anticipates the higher labor category rates to be depicted. To help clarify this intention, please see revised L.6.3.3. The Government has intentionally not used the terms "CONUS" and

"OCONUS.”

Q&C 206:

Reference: The referenced solicitation section states: “The Offeror shall submit the most recent actual average rate for each and every proposed labor category proposed in the

ETSC Rate Workbook. Recent is defined as the current contractor fiscal year. The

Offeror will submit its actual average rate, as of the end of each of the last two completed contractor fiscal years, for each and every proposed category.” It is quite possible that offerors may not have employed such labor categories in the last two fiscal yes and, hence, may not have actual average rates.

Question: May offerors submit rates based on market research and salary surveys to satisfy the above requirement for any labor category that the offeror does not currently employ?

Answer: See updated language in Section L.6.4 Labor Rate Submission Guidance. “The

Offeror shall properly reference the appropriate location of any relevant material that substantiates the methodology of each indirect element proposed to establish its fully burdened labor rates.”

Q&C 207:

Reference: There are numerous references to the Service Contract Act (SCA) and Wage

Determinations (WD), although no specific information is given on the applicability of either.

Question: Which government directed LCAT’s are subject to SCA and WD?

Answer: RFP Attachments 9 and 10 of the RFP provide a table of contents of all applicable labor categories. See FAR 52.222-41 for guidance. The Government does not make the SCA nor WD determination for individual Offerors.

Q&C 208:

Reference: None

Question: How shall the offerors utilize the SCA for Federal Hires Attachment?

Answer: RFP Attachments 9 and 10 of the RFP provide a table of contents of all applicable labor categories. See FAR Subpart 22.10 – Service Contract Labor Standards for guidance.

Q&C 209:

Reference: RFP L.6.3.1.2 states: “The educational and years of experience requirements identified for each category represent the baseline qualification criteria. At the individual

TO level, the Government may require additional and/or unique qualifications over and above those stated (our emphasis). When applicable, these additional/unique qualification criteria will be defined in the Task Order Request (TOR)”.

Question: Offerors cannot realistically project additional and/or unique qualifications over and above those stated in Attachment 4 for any potential future scenario in order to price ceiling rates appropriately, or to propose additional LCATS at the IDIQ proposal stage.

Answer: The Government recognizes that the future task orders cannot be scoped nor the labor requirements fully recognized at this time. The Base Contract and Sample Task

Order Proposals will focus on the known/projected labor categories stated, recognizing that Future Task Orders may expand upon that list on a case by case basis. Text addressing additional and/or unique qualification criteria has been deleted from the RFP.

Q&C 210:

Reference: RFP L.6.3.1.2 states: “The educational and years of experience requirements identified for each category represent the baseline qualification criteria. At the individual

TO level, the Government may require additional and/or unique qualifications over and above those stated (our emphasis). When applicable, these additional/unique qualification criteria will be defined in the Task Order Request (TOR)”.

Question: How shall the Offeror capture the potential difference in rates to meet any future Government requirements for LCATs over and above baseline qualification requirements?

Answer: The Government recognizes that the future task orders cannot be scoped nor the labor requirements fully recognized at this time. The Base Contract and Sample Task

Order Proposals will focus on the known/projected labor categories stated, recognizing that Future Task Orders may expand upon that list on a case by case basis. Text addressing additional and/or unique qualification criteria has been deleted from the RFP.

Q&C 211:

Reference: Solicitation L.6.3.1.2, reference requirement states “The Offeror shall fill-in under “Offeror’s Labor Category” column of the Labor Trace Matrix utilizing its own and/or its major subcontractors’ internal labor categories and shall ensure that all categories are traceable to the ETSC Rate Schedule.”

Question: Please provide clarification of what is meant by “…utilizing its own and/or its major subcontractors’ internal labor categories...”

Rationale: The Government’s requirement is ambiguous and does not reflect typical standard practices and procedures by offerors to build a Basis of Estimate for Direct

Labor rates. The requirement appears to intentionally limit competition by requiring small business offerors, and/or its subcontractors, to have a pre-existing set of internal labor categories that would match the Government defined and mandatory to bid labor categories.

Answer: Please see L.6.7.3 for the updated language.The Government has established a common set of 33 labor categories located at ERW (Attachment 4) Tab 2 and rates in order to establish a fair, balanced and consistent evaluation among all bidders at the STO and Base Contract level.

Q&C 212:

Reference: Solicitation L.6.3.1.2, reference requirement states “The Offeror shall fill-in under “Offeror’s Labor Category” column of the Labor Trace Matrix utilizing its own and/or its major subcontractors’ internal labor categories and shall ensure that all categories are traceable to the ETSC Rate Schedule.”

Question: Request the Government update the solicitation requirements to permit a small business without pre-existing set of internal labor categories to match the

Government’s defined/mandatory labor categories with its own standard practices for determine basis of estimate for Direct Labor.

Rationale: There are many ways and factors a small business uses to determine the basis of estimate for setting Direct Labor rates. If a small business does not have a corporate internal labor categories or have current personnel performing the exacting type of work defined by the Government, it should not be penalized, or in this case, prevented by the

Government from bidding this solicitation.

Answer: Please see L.6.7.3 for the updated language.The Government has established a common set of 33 labor categories located at ERW (Attachment 4) Tab 2 and rates in

Q&C 213:

Reference: Solicitation L.6.4.2.1 Direct Labor Rates. Requirement states: “The Offeror shall submit the most recent actual average rate for each and every proposed labor category proposed in the ETSC Rate Workbook. Recent is defined as the current contractor fiscal year. The Offeror will submit its actual average rate, as of the end of each of the last two completed contractor fiscal years, for each and every proposed category.”

Question: Are small businesses restricted from bidding if they do not have a recent actual average rate for each and every proposed labor category?

Rationale: We understand the Government wrote this solicitation for both the

Unrestricted and small business competition pools. However, it appears the Government has not taken into account the size standard (<$15M) of small business primes and whether such “average rates” may exist across each and every Government-provided and

Government-defined labor category.

Answer: Please see L.6.7.3 for the updated language. The Government has established a common set of 33 labor categories located at ERW (Attachment 4) Tab 2 and rates in

Q&C 214:

Reference: Solicitation L.6.4.2.1 Direct Labor Rates. Requirement states: “The Offeror shall submit the most recent actual average rate for each and every proposed labor category proposed in the ETSC Rate Workbook. Recent is defined as the current contractor fiscal year. The Offeror will submit its actual average rate, as of the end of each of the last two completed contractor fiscal years, for each and every proposed category.”

Question: What is a small business Offeror’s recourse if they, or their subcontractors, do not possess current/past performance in the labor categories defined by the Government?

Rationale: This is not the first time this question was asked; the Government failed to address these questions previously. It appears the Government is using the Price section documentation requirements to limit competition. By not accepting other methods to determine Direct Labor rates the Government excludes open competition in the small business pool. Since the size standard for Small Business is <$15M, the Government should have anticipated that not all qualified small business competitors would have established internal labor categories or have comprehensive work focused on the

Government’s defined labor categories.

Answer: Please see L.6.7.3 for the updated language.The Government has established a common set of 33 labor categories located at ERW (Attachment 4) Tab 2 and rates in

Q&C 215:

Reference: Solicitation L.6.4.2.3 Sales Data. Requirement states: “The Offeror shall provide sales data for the last two (2) fiscal years and current year to date. The Offeror shall also provide projected sales data for the life of this award.”

Question: Please provide further details and definition of the requirement to provide

“Sales Data”.

Rationale: This requirement is ambiguous and lacks adequate definition to answer and could result in pre- or post-award issues. The Government needs to provide details on the minimum information/format required. If not then as written, any level of detail is appropriate.

Answer: See updated Section L.6.7.5 Sales Data.

Q&C 216:

also provide projected sales data for the life of this award.”

Question: Please provide further details and definition of the requirement to provide

“projected sales data”.

Rationale: This requirement is ambiguous and lacks adequate definition to answer and could result in pre- or post-award issues. Does the Government require projected sales data for the entire bidder’s corporation or just projected sales data for this specific solicitation? Why would the Government want a hypothetical situation provided to them? If this data were to be used by a bidder, it would be located with the explanation of proposed overhead and general & administrative rates.

Q&C 217:

also provide projected sales data for the life of this award.”

Question: Please provide the level and format of information the Government seeks to review.

Rationale: This requirement is ambiguous and lacks adequate definition to answer and could result in pre- or post-award issues. As stated, this requirement can be answered by a single revenue figure each year. If so, we do not see any use by the Government for his highly hypothetical figure.

Q&C 218:

Reference: Solicitation L.6.4.2.3 Sales Data. Requirement states: “The Offeror shall also provide projected sales data for the life of this award.”

Question: The Government require projected sales data for the entire corporation’s portfolio or just the bid solicitation?

Rationale: This requirement is ambiguous and lacks adequate definition to answer and could result in pre- or post-award issues.

Q&C 219:

Reference: ETSC Industry Day and Pre-solicitation Conference Answers to Questions –

Release 2, Question #39 (Slide 45) and Question #639 (slide 48)

Question/Comment: The Government failed to answer the referenced questions concerning Direct Labor rate documentation submitted during previous Q&A. After review of the final Solicitation these questions are still appropriate and will be asked again for Government response and clarification. We request the Government answer each question individually to ensure bidders have a complete understanding of the requirement.

Rationale: The Government did not answer a majority of pricing questions asked during the Reference, instead opting to provide a general discussion of pricing requirements which did not address many individual questions.

Answer: The original release of the draft RFP did not include the cost/price volume, and thus the issuance of any new response would be counter-productive to assisting industry with responding to the final PWS, which includes a cost/price volume. Further, the firm which asked the referenced questions indicated satisfaction with the answer provided during their one-on-one session.

Q&C 220:

Reference: Attachment 4, Tab 3 – ETSC Rate Schedule.

Question: Does the Government require the Labor Rate (Unburdened) column to be filled in for all labor categories on the Prime Offerors’ submission?

Rationale: If the answer is “Yes”, then the Government is asking the Subcontractor bidders to disclose proprietary information to its Prime Offeror. This is inappropriate.

Within the referenced Tab 3, the Government is requiring the prime to list all Labor Rates

(unburdened) for every Labor Category. Then to list the Fully Burdened Ceiling Rates for each of performance year. If the Prime bidder uses a Subcontractor’s fully burdened rate – the Government is requiring Subcontractor’s to reveal the basis of Direct Labor and

Fully Burdened rate – thus revealing the subcontractor’s “wrap” rate to the Prime. If it is the Government’s intent that those labor categories bid by subcontractors only appear within the subcontractor’s sealed package, then the Government needs to clarify this in the Solicitation and/instructions on Tab 1. Also, there is no provision in Tab 3 to point the evaluator to a subcontractor’s sealed package for the Labor Rate (unburdened).

While Tab 2 could be referenced by the evaluator, the Government has required the evaluator to cross reference pricing figures between multiple pricing spreadsheets. For example, Prime that uses 4 Major Subcontractors to create its Rate Schedule will require the Government to cross check and evaluate figures between 5 different Attachment 4 spreadsheets, none of which (include the Prime Offeror) will provide a complete picture of the Pricing Bid.

Answer: The Government has revised the Cost/Price section to better address this concern. The Offeror is to provide ceiling rates applicable to the Offeror Team, but is not required to provide individual rates for each subcontractor – only a ceiling rate. See updated Sections L.6.1 and L.6.3.

Q&C 221:

Reference: Attachment 4, Tab 2 – Labor Trace Matrix

Question: Request the Government explain the rationale by requiring Direct Labor rates to be based on on-going average rates. We are having a difficult time with understanding why the Government would dictate an Offerors Basis of Estimate process. This is especially disconcerting if the Government has not fully evaluated the ramifications of such direction.

Rationale: The Government’s requirement to development Direct Labor (Unburdened) on an offeror’s “most recent actual average rate for each and every proposed labor category” (L.6.4.2.1) introduces significant subjectivity during evaluation, when the

Pricing section should be deliberate and exacting.

Issue 1: If offerors have defined and in-use similar labor categories, the Government’s definition of its labor categories, especially the Degree and experience requirements may not match up exactly with the Offeror’s in-use labor categories. For example, if the

Government Labor Category requires 8 year’s experience; but the Offerors definition of in-use labor category only requires 6 year’s experience to perform the same level of work, then there is a disconnect. The disconnect could be in the Direct Labor rate being lower than needed for eight years. The Offeror could raise its Direct Labor rate and provide explanation of methodology to raising the Direct Labor rate. But this introduces more subjectively and would amount to a Pricing Volume of considerable length. Is it the intent of the Government to evaluate pages and pages of pricing information and justifications across not only the Primes submission but all each of its Subcontractors proposing labor categories?

Issue 2: It appears the Government believes that an Offerors in-use labor categories are not affected by market competition, acquisition type, or location and would be appropriate as the only basis of estimate to build Direct Labor rates and burdens for the

ETSC program. It is our opinion that Direct Labor rates should be based on the target customer set, acquisition type and the type and level of talent required to support requirements. This should not be treated as a one-size fits all acquisition. If so, the

Government will award contracts to Offerors that may not have the ability to attract and retain qualified talent. The Government should permit Offerors to use their own standard practices to determine a basis of estimate for Direct Labor.

Answer: The Government is seeking to obtain cost data necessary to perform the Fair and Reasonableness evaluation mandated by FAR Part 15.4 using the evaluation detailed in Section M.4.0 and its subordinate paragraphs. Section L.6.7.3 details the Direct Labor

Rates issues in the revised RFP. That section does provide for the situation being discussed in this question provided that methodology and source reference information is provided.

Q&C 222:

Question: Why is the Government requiring small business to bid all 33 labor categories when a majority of the categories will not be using in support of PWS 3.1 elements.

Rationale: As stated by the Government requirement, the Small Business set-aside will focus primarily on supporting PWS 3.1. We understand there may be occasional minor overlap into PWS 3.2 and PWS 3.3 when it makes sense at the Task Order level.

However, in a majority of cases we expect that Small Business primes will be bidding work that requires support of Labor Categories associated with PWS 3.1 Training and

Training Assistance. Yet, the Government is requiring small businesses to bid

“Armorer/Small Arms Repair Technician” and/or “Senior Computer Operator” to select of the more obvious labor categories. In the Government’s quest to simply acquisition documentation, it has increased workload on small business to figure out how to bid

Labor Categories that never be used under PWS 3.1.

Note: The Solicitation requires Offerors bid all Labor Categories

Note: The Solicitation requirement that Offerors substantiate its Direct Labor bid based on on-going actual average rates

Answer: The ETSC Base Contract encompasses the full scope cited in PWS 1.3. The

Small Business Set-Aside Lot is an awardable ETSC Base Contract lot. The labor categories were mapped to the ETSC Scope, and not to the Lot structure. ETSC Task

Orders will fall within the overall ETSC Base Contract scope. The preponderance of work under each Task Order will dictate the competitive Lot (SBSA or F&O) that will execute the preponderance of work required. The full scope of the ETSC shall be addressed by both Lot structures as a result.

Q&C 223:

Question: Recommend the Government eliminate the unrestricted part of this acquisition and make this a 100% small business Set-Aside.

Rationale: The Government’s Solicitation requires small business the exact same requirements as the unrestricted pool. To bid all labor categories, small business will need to have past performance or build a team to be able to develop the Direct Labor of basis of estimate required by the Government. Once complete, Small Business team have the capability to perform all work under PWS 3.1, PWS 3.2 and PWS 3.3. There is no need for an unrestricted pool.

Answer: The ETSC Lot Structure was established based on Market Research. PWS 1.3

(Scope) explains the difference between the Lot structures.

This issue was also addressed in the Draft RFP Questions and Answers on slides 3, 119, and 175. Slide 175 states specifically, "Each requirement will be provided to the appropriate lot and designate the appropriate environment prior to any bid action, and in the event of the task covering multiple PWS sections, the section with the preponderance of the work will be used as the basis for competition and award." Since work will be issued based on the preponderance of work, the potential exists for the SBSA Lot to support tasks across the full ETSC Scope of PWS 1.3.

Q&C 224:

Reference: L 6.3.1.2.3

Question: If Prime and Major Subcontractor have different rates for a single labor category and therefor the source is “multiple” – then are you asking us to bid multiple rates for a single Labor category?

If so, will multiple rates for a single category be incorporated into our contract upon award?

Answer: See updated Section L.6.6 Handling of Prime and Subcontractor Labor

Categories. See L.6.3.3 for the handling of ceiling rates by the Offeror. Only one ceiling rate per labor category is permitted.

Q&C 225:

Reference: L.6.3

Question: The instructions appear to give conflicting instruction, please confirm that the major subcontractors are only required to submit an ERW for their rates used in the offerors submittal at the IDIQ level.

For example if only one of the major subcontractor’s rates is used in the offerors submittal then the major subcontractors ERW would only be that one rate.

Answer: The Offeror Team shall decide how to best represent their proposal approach in order to allow for a Fair and Reasonableness determination to be made by the

Government as to their overall rate structure. See revised L.6.6 and L.6.3.3 for further clarification.

Q&C 226:

Reference: SECTION L 6.4.2; L 6.4.2.1; L 6.4.2.2 and L 6.4.2.2 - Section L 6.4.2 and sub-paragraphs state require a FPRA or FPRR or absent these two agreements Offerors must show how indirect rates were computed and applied. Additional, Offeror must provide “recent actual average for each and every proposed labor category. The requirements of L 6.4.2.1, L 6.4.2.2 and L 6.4.2.3 seems unnecessary and burdensome for

Offerors without a FPRA or FPRR.

Question: Within L.6.4.2, please delete the last paragraph in L.6.4.2 (Historical Pricing

Rate Recommendations), L.6.4.2.1 (Direct Labor Rates), L.6.4.2.2 (Indirect Labor Rates), and L.6.4.2.3 (Sales Data).

Answer: The Government shall conduct a Fair and Reasonable evaluation required in

FAR 15.404-1 (among numerous FAR citations cited in M.4.1), to be executed as stated in M.4, and requires the information to support this evaluation. The Government has given flexibility in the reporting options to meet this requirement in an attempt to minimize the burden on Offerors to provide such. Please see updated L.6.7.

Q&C 227:

Reference: SECTION L 6.3.1.2.3

Question: Section L 6.3.1.2.3 states if a labor category is proposed using multiples entities the Offeror shall annotate “Multiple Sources” and “NOTE: For each entity identified, corresponding entries shall be made in the Rate Schedule (ETSC Rate

Workbook, Tab 3 (See the Labor Trace Matrix for samples).

a. Why would an Offeror bid multiple rates for a single labor category?

b. Which rate will Offeror be required to propose in the STOP?

c. Is it the intent for the Government to allow an Offeror to bid multiple rates for future

Task Orders?

Answer: See updated Section L.6.6 Handling of Prime and Subcontractor Labor

Categories. See L.6.3.3 for the handling of ceiling rates by the Offeror. Only one ceiling rate per labor category is permitted.

Q&C 228:

Reference: SECTION L 6.3.1.2; L 6.3.1.2.3 and L 6.3.1.3

Question: It appears the Government is asking Offerors to propose a “labor rate deck”

(i.e. Attachment 4, Tab 3) and the basis for an Offeror’s rate deck can be either the Prime or a single Major Subcontractor or all Major Subcontractor or any combination.

Further, the Government wants to see and understand the basis for each rate (i.e. Direct

Base Rate, Indirect Rates, and Profit) no matter who the source (i.e. Prime or Major

Subcontractor).

We understand that we must list the source for each Fully Burdened Labor Rate (FBLR) but the RFP is confusing on how multiple rates per Labor Category (see L 6.3.1.2.3 and L

6.3.1.3) will be treated during Phase 2.

a) Will a successful Offeror’s prime contract include an Attachment 4, Tab 3, Table 1 and

2 for all future Task Orders and will list one Fully Burdened Labor Rate (FBLR) per

Labor Category and the Prime and all its Subcontractors will be bound by these FBLRs?

b) For Labor Categories that have multiple sources as allowed in Sections L 6.3.1.2.3 and

L 6.3.1.3, which rate should Offerors bid in the STOP?

c) Will Government award multiple rates for each Labor Category if the Offeror proposed multiple rates at Phase 1?

Answer: For a) See revised section L.6.1 – only one ceiling rate is required for each of the 33 labor categories. L.6.4 states, “The fully burdened ceiling labor rates shall be considered binding for the entire ETSC effective period.”

For b) The Government has required that the Offeror provide a ceiling rate for the work.

For c) See updated Section L.6.6 Handling of Prime and Subcontractor Labor Categories.

See L.6.3.3 for the handling of ceiling rates by the Offeror. Only one ceiling rate per labor category is permitted.

Q&C 229:

Please clarify how CLINS in the Attachment matrix (or map) to Section B.

Reference:

Attachment_5(a)_ETSC_STO_Pricing_Workbook_FULL_AND_OPEN_LOT

Question: The CLINS listed in this attachment (all TABs) do not correspond to Section

B. For example, a) in the attachment CLIN 0003 is Deliverables FFP but in Section B

CLIN 0003 is Post Award Conference; b) in the attachment CLIN 0005 is ODC

Allowances COST but in Section B CLIN 0005 is Reserved FFP.

Answer: Sample Task Orders (STOs) are not awardable and are being used for evaluation purposes only. Therefore, the STO CLINs are not intended to map back. (See

Definition of Sample Task Order at L.1.1.), which reads, “A non-awardable, detailed sample performance work statement and attachments provided to Offerors for purposes of evaluation prior to the award of the ETSC base contract.”

Q&C 230:

Reference:

Attachment_5(a)_ETSC_STO_Pricing_Workbook_FULL_AND_OPEN_LOT

Question: These question address TABs 1a and 1b but apply to 2a/2b and 3a/3b.

a) On TAB 1a, will the Offeror enter a total cost of FFP (Government’s plug number plus

Offeror’s burdens) for CLINS 0003 – 0006? Will Offerors overwrite the amounts listed on TAB 1a?

b) On TAB 1b, what are lines 37 and 38 (Other Indirects) used for?

c) On TAB 1b, Material (COST) and Allowances (FFP) are listed in the same section but only Material Handling is addressed. Where do Offerors include Profit on Allowances?

d) The instructions on TAB 1b (cell B13) states “If Subcontractor labor is proposed, the

Subcontractor labor shall be traceable back to its separate Rate Schedule for validation.”

However, Section L 6.3.1.3 allows for a Labor Category to be based on the Prime. In this case, the Government will not find a rate buildup on the Subcontractor’s ERW. Please clarify how an Offeror should address this issue?

e) Which cells on TAB 1a are to be included in TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE (cell B41)?

Without embedded formulas it’s difficult to know which figures should be included in the

Total price.

f) On TAB 1a, line 4 column E states COST, but this line address LABOR which is FFP.

Please clarify what this section should include COST or FFP?

Answer: The Government has updated the attachment 5 documents and included all mathematical formulas for clarification. If any part of the question has not been addressed by the updates, then please notify the Government in the next Q&C Period.

Q&C 231:

Reference: Section L 6.0 and Attachment_5(a)

Question: Throughout Section L 6.2, Attachment 4 and Attachment 5(a) are conflicting guidance, direction and impressions on what exactly the Government is seeking in the way of Fully Burdened Labor Rates (Attachment 4, Tab 3, Table 1). In Section L

Offerors are required to give the source of a Labor Rate but instructions in Attachment 5

(a) states, “If Subcontractor labor is proposed, the Subcontractor labor shall be traceable back to its separate Rate Schedule for validation.” This is impossible if for example, all the FBLR contained in the Offerors ERW are from the Prime. Or a FBLR in the

Offeror’s ERW is sourced from Major Subcontractor #1 but in the STOP Major

Subcontractor #2 is proposing the work.

It gets a little more confusing when attempting to determine how FBLRs from “multiple sources” are addressed when proposing STOPs. For example, for a proposed Labor

Category rate from multiple sources Section L requires Offerors to each company’s rate in its Tab 3, Table 1. The question is how should Offerors uses these multiple rates in bidding the STOPs?

Would the Government please provide additional guidance in how to address multiple sources for STOP and future Task Orders (post award), and describe the general process of identifying a source (i.e. Attachment 4, Tab 2) to annotating a FBLR on Attachment 4, Tab 3 and how Offerors bid that rate and what Tab 3 will ultimately look like in a successful Offeror’s prime contract. Thank you.

Answer: The Government has made substantial updates to the entire Cost/Price Volume to include Attachments 4 and 5 based on comments received. Please review the updated content and advise during the next question and comment period if any concerns remain.

Q&C 232:

Reference: Section L 6.3.1 and Attachment_5(a)

Question: After Offerors review the each of the STOPs it is determined that a non-

Major Subcontractor is best suited to propose a task on a STOP;

a) Are Offerors allowed to propose a non-Major Subcontractor for a STOP?

b) If so, which Fully Burdened Labor Rate should the non-Major Subcontractor bid? This is more applicable if the Labor Category rate is from multiple sources.

Answer: The Government has made substantial updates to the entire Cost/Price Volume and workbooks based on comments received. Please review the updated content and advise if any of these concerns remain. The term “major subcontractor” has been removed entirely from the RFP, making both question a) and b) unanswerable with respect to the revised RFP content.

Q&C 233:

Reference: Tab 3, Table 2 Instructions, Paragraph 2 - • Paragraph 2 states, “The Offeror shall supply all applicable rates for each the Base, all Four Option Ordering Periods, and the Year 6 TO Labor Rates along with a description and/or calculation of how their rates/factors were developed in Tab 4 - Rate Build-Up Table. That information can be included either below or elsewhere in the Cost/Price Volume. If provided elsewhere, the

Contractor shall annotate the appropriate location by page reference in the column titled

"Definition and Allocation Base".

Question: Please provide clarification as to where the column titled "Definition and

Allocation Base" is located

Answer: The Government has made substantial updates to the entire Cost/Price Volume and workbooks based on comments received. Please review the updated content and advise if any of these concerns remain. Please see updated language in pricing workbooks. "Definition and Allocation Base” term has been deleted.

Q&C 234:

Reference: Attachment 4 ETSC Rate Workbook

Question: Please confirm that the Prime's ceiling rates on LCATs solely provided by the major subcontractor are calculated based on the major subcontractors’ rate with the Prime contractor's subcontractor handling fee applied.

Answer: The primes subhandling if applicable will be added to the subcontractor cost separately. The Cost/Price section and workbooks have been updated in response to industry comments. Material Handling and Subcontractor Handling lines are present in

Attachment 4 (ERW), Tab 3. The term “major subcontractor” has been removed from the RFP.

Q&C 235:

Reference: Attachment 4 ETSC Rate Workbook - The rate workbook tab 3 row 9 provides an example of providing a major subcontractor's rate only. The required information is the subcontractor's unburdened labor rate and their 6-contract period fully burdened rates.

Question: Would the Government please provide guidance how the Prime contractor should handle the unburdened rate requirement for major subcontractors who only provide their fully burdened rates because they consider the unburdened hourly rate proprietary?

How should the Prime complete the major sub's rates if we do not have their unburdened hourly rate?

Answer: See updated L.6.3 ETSC Rate Workbook and its subordinate paragraphs. Refer also to L.6.6 Handling of Prime and Subcontractor Labor Categories.

Q&C 236:

Reference: ATTACHMENT 4, ETSC Rate Workbook, Tab 1, 1. General Instructions

Question: Is it the Government’s intention that no discounts from the proposed ceiling rates provided in Attachment 4 will be allowed in the Sample Task Order proposals to be included in Phase II of this solicitation?

Answer: Yes. See L.6.8, “For the purposes of the ETSC award, discounted rates may not be used for STOPs. Discounted rates will be permitted for Future Task Order proposals.”

Q&C 237:

Reference: ATTACHMENT 4, ETSC Rate Workbook, Tab 1, 2. Pricing and Rates

Question: What is the CONUS location that offerors should use as an assumption for the determination of Direct Labor Rates?

Answer: The Government is requesting ceiling rates for this effort. The Government has intentionally not used the terms "CONUS" and "OCONUS.". Locations will be provided with Sample Task Orders and Future Task Orders.

Q&C 238:

Reference: L.6.3.1.3

Question: "Are offerors authorized to perform market salary surveys from sites such as salary.com or O’Net to obtain base line direct labor rates? Many small businesses will not have recent salary data for each of these labor categories. Many small businesses may have recent salary survey data but it may be for one contract in a low-income area, using this rate as an average will place the offeror at risk of nonperformance or at risk of being unable to compete on Task Order Proposals. Request the Government consider something similar to the below:

Exempt – utilize a salary survey site and provide supporting documentation using the nationwide average or establish a location for estimates.

Non-Exempt – utilize the highest rate between WD2005-2017 Rev. 22 dated 12/30/16 and WD2015-4281 Rev. 4 dated 12/30/2016 –Alaska and District of Columbia rates are typically the highest across the nation and thus acceptable for establishing ceiling rates.

If Offerors are not authorized to use salary survey data how should offerors establish direct labor (pay) rates for positions with no historical support or only low income historical support?

Answer: See updated Section L.6.7.2 Pricing Rate Documentation and L.6.7.3 Direct

Labor Rates. Within L.6.7.3, please note, “If an actual average direct rate does not exist, the Offeror shall provide, within ERW Tab 2, the methodology and source references it utilized to develop the proposed direct labor rate.”

Q&C 239:

Reference: L.6.3.1.4

Question: "It appears the Government is requesting that the subcontractor rates in Tab 4, Column K are the same rates to be utilized in Tab 3, Columns C-H. Is this assumption correct?

The Government did not provide a column in Tab 4 for the Prime Contractor to add any indirect burdens that may be added to a subcontractors proposed fully burdened hourly rate. How would the Government like to see these costs proposed?

Will these costs be applied only at the Task Order level?

How will minor subcontractor’s rates be established for the IDIQ and for the Task Order proposals?

L.6.3.1.4 stated the offeror can use as many rows and columns to complete the worksheet"

Answer: Yes. Attachment 5, Tab 1b allows the prime to add additional indirect rates and

G&A to the subcontractors cost. This cost will apply to STOs and future TOs. The

Offeror shall provide the rate being utilized to perform the scope of work. Yes. The

Offeror shall adjust their workbook to accommodate their rate structure.

Q&C 240:

Reference: L.6.4.2.1

Question: What supporting documentation does the Government wish to see to support historical direct labor rates? Do historical direct labor rates need to be established based on actual salaries paid to employees or can they be rates that were incorporated into other

IDIQ contracts but never used by the Offeror.

Answer: See updated Section L.6.7.2 Pricing Rate Documentation and L.6.7.3 Direct

Labor Rates for clarification.

Q&C 241:

Reference: L.6.3.1.2.3

Question: "If the Prime Contractor does not propose a labor category due to lack of historical rate experience how will their ceiling direct labor rates be established for that labor category? Can a Prime Contractor use market salary data to establish ceiling rates?

If not, can a Prime contract utilize direct labor rates established by a major subcontractor through historical rates as the direct labor rate for Prime Contractor positions and apply

Prime Contractor burdens to establish a ceiling rate for the Prime Contractor?

Can the Prime use labor category proposed by the major subcontractor as Prime’s labor category to bid on ETSC task orders?"

Answer: The Government has revised the Cost/Price section to better address this concern. The Offeror is to provide ceiling rates applicable to the Offeror Team, but is not required to provide individual rates for each subcontractor – only a ceiling rate. See

Section L.6.1 and Section L.6.7 with its subordinate paragraphs (particularly L.6.7.3

Direct Labor Rates and L.6.7.4 Indirect Labor Rates).

Q&C 242:

Reference: L.6.4.2.2/3

Question: The Government has requested indirect rate data for the last two (2) contractor fiscal years and the current contractor fiscal year to date. As 2017 data is unavailable – please confirm that 2014 and 2015 will be acceptable for historical rates.

Please confirm that 2016 YTD will be acceptable for the current fiscal year to date. The

Government has requested similar information for sales data. Please confirm that 2014 and 2015 will be acceptable for historical sales projections and that 2016 YTD will be acceptable for current YTD sales projections. Please confirm that 2017-2022 will be acceptable for projected sales/revenue information.

Answer: See updated Section L.6.7 and its subordinate paragraphs, where 2014, 2015, and 2016 are specifically identified as the intended years. Yes, 2017-2022 will be acceptable for projected sales/revenue information.

Q&C 243:

Reference: L.6.4.1

Question: In Section L.6.4.1 and other locations, the RFP mentions submission of

“Established Practices Documentation”, however no definition or criteria is given as to what constitutes “Established Practices Documentation for the purposes of this proposal.

Please clarify the criteria that would satisfy the “Established Practices Documentation” requirement.

Answer: See updated Section L.6.7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statements or Established

Practices Documentation. The updated L.6.7.1 provides a definition for Established

Practices Documentation: “Established Practices Documentation” is defined as any official company documentation that discloses the company’s cost development methodologies and other stated financial practices. This submission shall be compatible with MS Office 2013 compatible MS Word and Adobe PDF format.”

Q&C 244:

Reference: L.6.4.2.1 - Section L.6.4.2.1 states “The Offeror shall submit the most recent actual average rate for each and every proposed labor category proposed in the

ETSC Rate Workbook. Recent is defined as the current contractor fiscal year. The

Offeror will submit its actual average rate, as of the end of each of the last two completed contractor fiscal years, for each and every proposed category.”

Question: Would providing actuals and projected revenue as part of the indirect rate calculation supporting documentation satisfy the requirement for sales data (L.6.4.2.3)?

Answer: Please see revised L.6.7.3 and L.6.7.4.

Q&C 245:

Reference: L.6.4.2.1 - Direct labor rates in Section L.6.4.2.1 states that offerors shall submit average rates for each and every labor category. Average is further described as rates over the last two completed contractor fiscal years.

Question: "Small businesses rely on both survey data such as ERI as well as actual salary data to determine labor category pricing as the existing labor categories within most small businesses are limited in quantity. While Small Businesses will perform similar work, not all labor categories as part of the ETSC RFP will map to those currently used by Small Businesses. In addition, the locations that ETSC work will be performed is likely different from where Small Businesses are currently performing work.

Recommend that the government allow for use of survey data.

Answer: Please see revised L.6.7.3 and L.6.7.4.

Q&C 246:

Reference: L.6.0

Question: "Table L.6.0 seems to imply that the Government desires printed copies of the

Excel worksheets.

Does the Government require printed versions of the Excel worksheets in the pricing binder?"

Answer: The Government has updated Table L.1.1.1 plus various elements of Section

L.6, Cost/Price to show the format required for submission of the Cost/Price submission elements.

Q&C 247:

Reference: Table L.6.0

Question: "Table L.6.0 does not include the requirements shown in L.6.5.3, STOP

Resource Depiction.

Will the Government add the L.6.5.3 requirement to this table and can this requirement be submitted in the Excel workbook?"

Answer: The STOP Resource Depiction has been added to tables L.6 and L.4. See updated L.4.2.6 and L.6.9 STOP Resource Depiction.

Q&C 248:

Reference: L.6.4.5 JV, MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ or Subsidiary: If applicable, the

Offeror(s) shall disclose information pertaining to any proposed Joint Venture (JV) or mentor-protégé agreement. If a subsidiary or JV, then the Offeror shall provide information identifying all affiliates and provide a copy of the binding documentation

(e.g. Contract, Agreement, Evidence) validating the legally binding business relationship.

A properly executed Corporate Guaranty Agreement should also be provided. DCMA forms 1619 and 1620 are provided in section J, and should be completed and submitted where applicable.

Question: If small business offerors are unable to provide completed DCMA Forms

1619 and/or 1620, would the Government accept other evidence of financial capability

(e.g. audited financial statements, verified lines of credit, etc.)?

Answer: See updated Section L.6.7.8 Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé or Subsidiary which reads, “If applicable, the Offeror(s) shall disclose information pertaining to any proposed

JV, mentor-protégé and/or subsidiary agreement. If a subsidiary or JV, then the Offeror shall provide information identifying all affiliates and provide a copy of the binding documentation (e.g. Contract, Agreement, Evidence) validating the legally binding business relationship. A properly executed Corporate Guaranty Agreement shall be provided. DCMA Form 1620, provided in Section J, shall be completed and submitted where applicable.”

Q&C 249:

Reference: Attachment 4, Tab 3, Table 2

Question: Attachment 4 ETSC Rate Workbook, Tab 3, Table 2: Now that the

Government has changed the contract type from CPFF to T&M & FFP, is the information in Table 2 still required? If so, what will it be utilized for?

Answer: The Government has not changed the Contract Type for this requirement.

Reference 52.216-1 Type of Contract reflected in the RFP.

Attachment 4, Tab 3, Table 2 is required. The Government is requesting this information for evaluation purposes and to make a Fair and Reasonable determination.

Q&C 250:

Reference: Attachment 4, Tab 1 - Attachment 4, ETSC Rate Workbook, Tab 1, Item No.

4 “(Post-Award) Additions and Adjustments:” – this block of instruction refers to the

“pre-negotiated ETSC Rate Schedule”, which is understood to be the proposed labor rates for use on the ETSC Contract/Task Orders. Later in the instructions it states under b), the detailed rate breakdown for the additional/adjustment LCAT(s) will be “compliant with pre-negotiated indirect rates and profit/fee”.

Question: Is the bidder being asked to pre-negotiate a rate that is other than their

DCAA-accepted Forward Pricing Rates?

Answer: No

Q&C 251:

Reference: Attachment 4, Tabs 1 & 3

Question: Ref: Sol W900KK-17-R-0026, p 140 of 161, Sec L.6.4.3 “Program

Management Office Costing” / Attachment 4, ERW, Tab 1, Item No. 7: Language in these sections suggest an area to provide a methodology for Program Management Office

Costing is located in Attachment 4, ERW, Tab 3, though nothing seems specific on how to demonstrate this requirement. Further, Instruction 7 of Attachment 4, ERW, Tab 1 reads ‘PMO support costs should be clearly identified within each Sample TO or TOs for the ETSC.

Answer: See updated Section L.6.7.6 Program Management Office Costing.

Government has removed ERW / Attachment 4, Tab 1, Item No. 7.

Q&C 252:

Reference:

Question: Does the Government have a preferred location for use to when quoting our labor rates in the ETSC Rate Workbook? (CONUS, OCONUS, or a specific location worldwide)?

Answer: The Government has intentionally not used the terms "CONUS" and

"OCONUS.". Please refer to the Sample Task Orders for locations.

Q&C 253:

Reference: W900KK-17-R-0026 FINAL RFP Section 6.1 and ERW Attachment 4 Tab1

Pricing Instructions Para 2

Question: Per Attachment 4 (ERW), Tab 1, Pricing Instructions Paragraph 2, "the

Offeror may, at its discretion, elect to propose discounted hourly rates while pricing individual TOs." However, RFP Section L.6.1 General does not seem to allow for discounted bidding of STO pricing workbooks. Please clarify if discounting of the fully burdened ID/IQ ceiling labor rates submitted within offerors' ERW will be allowed for pricing STOPs, as well as for pricing future task post-award ETSC task orders.

Answer: See updated Language in Section L.6.8.2 STOP Hours and Rates Depictions, which states, “For the purposes of the ETSC award, discounted rates shall not be used for

STOPs. Discounted rates will be permitted for Future Task Order proposals.” The discounted rate may be used for Future Task Orders only. Attachment 4, Tab 1 text within the ERW has been updated for clarity.

Q&C 254:

Reference: W900KK-17-R-0026 FINAL RFP Sections L.6.4.2, L6.4.2.3 and M.4.2.2 -requirement for historical and projected sales data

Question: Per Sections L.6.4.2, L6.4.2.3 and M.4.2.2, in the absence of FPRR or FPRA, offerors are to provide sales data for the last two (2) fiscal years and current year to date, as well as projected sales data for the life of this award. Please define in more detail the intended content of historical and projected “sales data.”

Answer: See updated section L.6.7 and its subordinate paragraphs.

Q&C…